freecounterpoint: A Parody.....Right??

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

A Parody.....Right??

15 comments:

Mr roT said...: LATimes has been competing with the Onion for a while now. Krauthammer on topic.; 11/22/2006 5:25 PM
Tecumseh said...: Even O.J. neutralists like me — to this day, I'm not sure whether he did it

All right -- I stopped reading right there and then. The LATimes is only good for kitty litter.; 11/22/2006 6:29 PM
Tecumseh said...: How about this one?; 11/22/2006 9:56 PM
Tecumseh said...: JJ: That Krauthammer piece is quite powerful. Do you think anyone who rooted for OJ way back when feels an ounce of guilt now? Who were those people cheering at a murderer going free? We shall all leave with that blood on our hands -- I still think this was the day when America went one step down.; 11/22/2006 10:07 PM
Mr roT said...: Hastings is another embarrassment. But, hey! If Pelosa names him Chairman, then the Dems will be shown up as if not just soft on defense, but a mockery of seriousness. If she doesn't, we may get a decent chairman.

You got to look at these things in the proper AArrhic (after Pyrrhus) victory sense. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Kerry wins the Presidency? So much the better! We lose all the wars and the left will be chastened.
The Republicans win? So much the better! I can keep howling about ideological purity!; 11/23/2006 1:18 AM
Tecumseh said...: It entered my mind -- in fact, it was the only aspect that did. But I see your point.; 11/23/2006 5:47 AM
Tecumseh said...: And, I'm not in the business of seeing silver linings, like others do. When you lose, you lose, and you win, you win. That's part of the reason I consistently root for the US to win its wars -- it pisses me off to no end to listen to pinko-lefties being disingineous and glorifying our losses as being better in the long run for us, or some such crapola.

That said, one must accept that certain things come in cycles, especially in politics, and one needs some pause to refresh and regroup. Too much power for too long leads to apathy, corruption, big fat laziness, and plain stupidity. So a couple of years in the wilderness don't bother me too much, if it means getting meaner and leaner and smarter. Question is: any of that happening. Where are the Reagans of 1979 or Gingriches of 1993? Don't see any of that around teh corner...; 11/23/2006 5:54 AM
Tecumseh said...: Well, Kerry ~ 0 to my mind, so anyone who is 1/Kerry approaches \infty.

At any rate, why would you denigrate so vehemently Newt? He can be full of hot air sometimes, but still, he's a pretty smart cookie, in my book. Besides, he was a history prof at some point, making an honest living -- unlike Kerry, who hasn;t done that in all his life.; 11/23/2006 2:56 PM
Mr roT said...: He was the ward of his wife while in grad school and dumped her when she got the big C. And so what if you're a history or math prof--making an honest living? By whose reckoning is corrupting the young and getting laid at conferences an honest living?
You wouldn't happen to know some honest-living math types with views detrimental to these United States, would you, AI?; 11/23/2006 4:06 PM
Tecumseh said...: JJ, JJ, you're flailing wildly here. Non sequitur et omnia non sequitur. So OK, Newt may be a bastard. But Ronnie himself was not a choir boy when it came to wives. Though I don't want to discount character flaws (I think they can be very much indicative of other flaws -- see eg Bubba), let's not get overboard with that. And let's not get into a fallacy of the sort ((Newt did X) & (Newt says Y) & (I don't like X)) ==> (Y is bad), yes?; 11/23/2006 9:13 PM
Mr roT said...: Who the hell is talking about choirboys? You fart on Kerry for being a kept man. Why does Newt get away with it? Seems the situation was actually tons worse.
Your argument also seems to be that as a history prof he was 'earniing an honest living'. What the hell is that? What's Juan Cole's department? Ans.; 11/23/2006 11:09 PM
Tecumseh said...: My argument was that, as a History prof, one has the occasion to earn an honest living. Of course, not every such prof rises to the occasion -- again, JJ, you fall in one of those logical traps recognized since the Ancient Greeks.; 11/24/2006 12:56 AM
Tecumseh said...: Also, in what sense does Newt "get away with it"? You mean, from me? Well, because.; 11/24/2006 12:57 AM
Mr roT said...: "Well, because". Good answer. I don't think the Greeks had a name for that one, but could be.; 11/24/2006 1:52 PM
Tecumseh said...: Getting back on topic, here is more self-parody, as reported by Taranto:

Eddie Jones, president of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Association, criticized News Corp. and publisher Judith Regan for canceling "If I Did It," a book and filmed-for-TV interview with Simpson in which he describes how he would have killed ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman.

"O.J. should have been able to tell his side of his story for the book," Jones said. "He was exonerated and acquitted of all charges, but in the eyes of white America, he is still guilty. It's a modern-day lynching. . . . (Serial killer) Jeffrey Dahmer was able to do an interview. The Menendez brothers killed their parents and did interviews.

"Timothy McVeigh killed all those people in (the) Oklahoma City (bombing) and still did interviews and wrote a book.

"Why is it O.J. can't write his book and tell his side of the story?"; 11/24/2006 10:15 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)